FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH LEITRIM GLENS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR10066/02/LM
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as Project Manager on the 17th of July, 2000. He believed that the contract of employment was 'open-ended'. The Company maintains that the contract was for a fixed 6-month term although it accepts that this was not stipulated. The contract was due to finish on the 17th of January, 2001. Part of the worker's duties was to secure funding for the continuation of the post. In late November, 2000, the worker was advised that his contract was due to expire. On the 20th of December, 2000, he was informed that he would continue to be employed on a monthly basis and this continued until the 30th of June, 2001, when his contract was terminated. The worker believes that he was unfairly dismissed. He referred his case to a Rights Commissioner whose conclusions and recommendation were as follows:
Conclusions
"Having considered the oral and written evidence submitted at the hearing, and noting the letter of the 24th of January, 2003, and the attached redundancy claim form sent by the employer, I am satisfied that the claimant was fully aware of his terms and conditions of employment which was initially for a period of six months and subsequently extended by agreement to June 30th 2001.
Recommendation
For the reasons set out in the foregoing I am satisfied there was no dismissal. The position of the Company is upheld.
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 29th of April, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of September, 2003, in Sligo.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no mention of a fixed-term contract to the worker. He would have raised the issue with the Company if there had been.
2. Despite receiving official notice that funding for the post was extended to at least September, 2001, and possibly December, 2001, the worker's contract was not extended.
3. The worker received a letter on the 27th of June, 2001, from the Company which highlighted concerns about his work performance. This was the first time he was made aware of any problems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has always been Company policy to enter into fixed-term contracts with employees. Numerous contracts drawn up over a 15 - year period prove this.
2. Funding was needed to ensure that the post of Project Manager was secured but not that a particular person would continue in the post.
3. In a report dated the 18th of December, 2000, the worker accepted that he was clearly informed that funding for the post was for a further 6 months and that "six months employment is until 17th of January, 2001."
4. There were a number of reasons for the termination of the worker's contract - the foot and mouth outbreak, the non - availability of funds for the post after the 30th of June, 2001, and ongoing restructuring of projects / staffing positions.
5. From July, 2001, to 21st October, 2002, the day to day running of the Centre was carried out by the chairman and subcommittee of the Board.
DECISION:
The employer told the Court that the claimant was not dismissed but that his employment terminated when his fixed term contract expired. It is accepted that the contract of employment entered into between the employer and the claimant was not expressed to be for a fixed term. Furthermore, there is no evidence before the Court that the claimant was told, before his employment commenced, that it would automatically expire after a defined period and that the post would be re-advertised.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, and having reviewed the evidence before it, the Court cannot accept that the claimant was in fact employed on a fixed term contract. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the claimant was treated unfairly. Against that background, the Court considers that the employer should offer and the claimant should accept a severance payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against the employer arising from the termination of his employment.
The appeal is allowed and the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th September, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.